Joseph Cerbone, J.
Defendant's speedy trial motion was properly denied. The certificates of readiness filed by the People after answering not ready on certain occasions tolled the speedy trial clock from running for the remainder of the adjournment periods and the good faith of such certificates was not negated by the People's unreadiness at the subsequent calendar calls ( People v. Douglas, 264 A.D.2d 671, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 862; see also, People v. Stirrup, 91 N.Y.2d 434, 440; People v. Acosta, 249 A.D.2d 161, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 892). The fact that the court granted longer adjournments than requested by the People did not require such time to be charged to the People ( see, People v. Rivera, 223 A.D.2d 476, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 852). The record supports the court's conclusion that the prosecutor's notices of readiness were not illusory ( see, People v. Kendzia, 64 N.Y.2d 331). The People are not required to contact their witnesses on every adjourned date ( People v. Robinson, 171 A.D.2d 475, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 973), nor do they have to be able to produce their witnesses instantaneously in order for a statement of readiness to be valid ( see, People v. Dushain, 247 A.D.2d 234, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 1007).
Defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them.